MODIFIED DAILY UNDULATING PERIODIZATION

MODEL PRODUCES GREATER PERFORMANCE THAN A

TRADITIONAL CONFIGURATION IN POWERLIFTERS
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

MICHAEL C. ZOURDOS,1 EDWARD JO,2 ANDY V. KHAMOUI,3 SANG-ROK LEE,4 BONG-SUP PARK,3
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 10/06/2023

MICHAEL J. ORMSBEE,3 LYNN B. PANTON,3 ROBERT J. CONTRERAS,5 AND JEONG-SU KIM3

1
Department of Exercise Science and Health Promotion, Muscle Physiology Laboratory, Boca Raton, Florida; 2Department of
Kinesiology and Health Promotion, Human Performance Research Laboratory, California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona, Pomona, California; 3Department of Nutrition, Food, and Exercise Sciences, The Florida State University, Tallahassee,
Florida; 4Department of Kinesiology and Dance, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico; and 5College of Arts
and Sciences, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida

ABSTRACT and bench press 1RM. Testosterone decreased (p # 0.05) at

Zourdos, MC, Jo, E, Khamoui, AV, Lee, S-R, Park, B-S,
Ormsbee, MJ, Panton, LB, Contreras, RJ, and Kim, J-S.
Modified daily undulating periodization model produces greater
performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters.
J Strength Cond Res 30(3): 784–791, 2016—The primary aim
of this study was to compare 2 daily undulating periodization
(DUP) models on one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength in
the squat, bench press, deadlift, total volume (TV) lifted, and
weeks 5 and 6 and cortisol decline at weeks 3 and 4. However,
neither hormone was different at posttesting compared with pre-
testing (p . 0.05). Our findings suggest that an HPS configuration
of DUP has enhanced performance benefits compared with HSP.
KEY WORDS resistance training, program design, strength,
volume, hormone response
INTRODUCTION

temporal hormone response. Eighteen male, college-aged
(21.1 6 1.9 years) powerlifters participated in this study and
were assigned to one of 2 groups: (a) traditional DUP training
with a weekly training order: hypertrophy-specific, strength-
specific, and power-specific training (HSP, n = 9) or (b)
modified DUP training with a weekly training order:
hypertrophy-specific, power-specific, and strength-specific
training (HPS, n = 9). Both groups trained 3 nonconsecutive
days per week for 6 weeks and performed the squat, bench
press, and deadlift exercises. During hypertrophy and power
sessions, subjects performed a fixed number of sets and rep-
etitions but performed repetitions until failure at a given per-
centage during strength sessions to compare TV. Testosterone
and cortisol were measured at pretesting and posttesting and
before each strength-specific day. Hypertrophy, power, and
strength produced greater TV in squat and bench press (p #
0.05) than HSP, but not for deadlift (p . 0.05). For squat and
deadlift, there was no difference between groups for 1RM (p .
0.05); however, HPS exhibited greater increases in 1RM
bench press than HSP (p # 0.05). Effect sizes (ES) showed
meaningful differences (ES . 0.50) in favor of HPS for squat
Address correspondence to Jeong-Su Kim, jkim6@fsu.edu.
30(3)/784–791
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
P
eriodization is a systematic approach to optimize
an exercise-training program toward peak perfor-
mance before a planned competition through
time-sensitive manipulation of training volume
and intensity (5). However, nonperiodized training excludes
programmed variations to training variables such as volume
and intensity (2). Currently, there are 2 primary models of
periodization implemented by athletes and coaches: linear
periodization (LP) and nonlinear periodization (NLP), also
called undulating periodization (UP) (2). Previous research
has shown LP (22,26) and UP (10,12) to increase measures
of muscular performance to a greater degree when compared
with a nonperiodized training program. Undulating periodi-
zation can be further modified into the more specific terms:
weekly undulating periodization (WUP) or daily undulating
periodization (DUP), whereas the more general term NLP
could refer to either WUP or DUP without specifying.
Various studies have compared LP vs. UP for possible
differences in total strength gains (1,2,16–19,21). The current
body of evidence, however, shows mixed results as some
studies report no differences among training models (1,2,9),
whereas others suggest UP as more advantageous for strength
development (16–19,21). However, a more in-depth analysis
of the pertinent data reveals that LP and UP offer no signif-
icantly distinct advantages in untrained or recreationally
trained individuals (1,2,7,9). Conversely, individuals with sig-
nificant resistance training experience have exhibited a greater

784 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

degree of muscular strength development when using a DUP
design compared with LP (16–19,21).
Although DUP has shown enhanced efficacy among
other periodization schemes for strength development in
trained individuals, no studies have investigated program-
ming variations within the DUP framework in experi-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
enced athletes. It is reasonable to speculate that the
program design and practical implementation of DUP
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 10/06/2023
can be further optimized. A possible area of improvement
in the DUP design is the temporal configuration of
hypertrophy-centric, strength-centric, and power/speed-
centric sessions within a given week. Previous research
demonstrating the effectiveness of DUP over LP imple-
mented a weekly training order of hypertrophy-centric,
strength-centric, and power-centric bouts (e.g., hypertro-
phy training on Monday, strength training on Wednesday,
and power training on Friday) (18). However, this design
calls for a strength-centric bout to be performed just
48–72 hours after a hypertrophy-centric bout each week.
Hypertrophy training is characterized by sessions of high
volume of exercise, a condition shown to result in height-
ened muscle damage, and compromised neuromuscular
performance for up to 48-hour postexercise (4,20). In
the context of traditional DUP formatting, this may
conceivably hinder performance (i.e., total volume [TV]
performed) during the subsequent strength-centric bout,
thereby precluding strength athletes from maximizing
their training potential. Therefore, greater temporal sepa-
ration between strength-centric and hypertrophy-centric
bouts during each week of DUP might be more advanta-
geous than the traditional configuration in terms of max-
imizing total training volume and strength development.
For example, an experimental DUP model meriting fur-
ther investigation comprise weekly training sessions
sequenced in the order of hypertrophy-centric, power-
centric, and strength-centric bouts, thereby providing
a greater time frame between hypertrophy and strength
sessions. The resulting training outcomes would then be
compared against those derived from a traditional DUP
method in which bouts are performed weekly in the order
of hypertrophy-centric, strength-centric, and then power-
centric sessions (HSP).
Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare the
effects of a modified DUP format with a weekly training order
of hypertrophy-centric, power-centric, and strength-centric
bouts (HPS) on total training volume (i.e., sets 3 reps 3
weightlifted) and muscular strength in comparison with a tra-
ditional DUP model (i.e., HSP) in resistance-trained men for 6
weeks. In addition, a secondary aim was pursued in which the
temporal secretion patterns of testosterone and cortisol were
examined in response to both DUP training programs to pro-
vide insight on potential mechanisms underpinning any differ-
ential adaptive responses. It was hypothesized that HPS (i.e.,
modified DUP) would yield greater volume and strength gains
in the 3 exercises performed during training.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This study was designed to examine the physiological
responses to 2 different 6-week training models of DUP in
competitive powerlifters. Subjects were assigned to one of 2
groups in which training was performed in a fixed order each
week as follows: Modified DUP with a HSP (n = 9) sequence
or traditional DUP with a HPS (n = 9) sequence (Table 1).
Groups were counterbalanced to ensure that there was no
significant group difference in relative strength (25) or abso-
lute strength for powerlifting total (PT) (i.e., sum of squat,
bench, and deadlift) as predetermined by one-repetition max
(1RM) testing.
Subjects reported to the laboratory for a total of 22 days
over 8 consecutive weeks to complete the study. Weeks 1
and 8 served as pretesting and posttesting visits, respectively.
Pretesting 1RM, anthropometric assessments, and blood
collection were administered on day 1 of week 1, followed
by taper (low volume) training 72 hours later. Weeks 2–7
consisted of a 6-week DUP training program (HSP or
HPS). Subjects performed resistance training 3 days per
week on nonconsecutive days during the 6-week program.
Blood was collected 30 minutes before the strength-specific
bout, after a 2-hour fast, each week throughout the 6 weeks
of training. During week 8, subjects reported to the labora-
tory on only 2 occasions for taper training to allow super-
compensation to set in before post-1RM testing. The first
taper session was 96 hours after the completion of week 7
training, and again 72 hours later for a final 1RM testing,
anthropometric assessment, and blood collection. Addition-
ally, all subjects consumed 30 grams of whey protein (Sciva-
tion Whey; Scivation, Burlington, NC, USA) as measured by
a food scale 30 minutes before and immediately after each
training and testing session to ensure consistency of pretrain-
ing and posttraining feeding.
Subjects
A total of 26 subjects were screened for participation. Six of
the subjects did not meet the strength criteria for inclusion.
Of the 20 subjects that began the study, 2 did not complete
the protocol (one from HSP and one from HPS) due to
noncompliance (i.e., missing more than 2 sessions), thus
a subject’s data were included if 90% total compliance was
achieved. Therefore, data from 18 collegiate, male power-
lifters (age: 21.1 6 1.9 years, body mass: 82.6 6 11.4 kg,
percent body fat: 9.3 6 3.2%, height: 177.8 6 7.9 cm) re-
cruited primarily from the 2011, 2012, and 2013, United
States of America Powerlifting (USAPL) state championship
teams (i.e., The Florida State University Powerlifting Team),
were used for this investigation. All subjects competed and
trained raw (i.e. without the use of powerlifting supportive
equipment) and were drug-free. Inclusion criteria were: (a)
a 1RM back squat and deadlift at least 2 times greater than
the subject’s body weight, and a 1RM bench press at least
1.25 times greater than their body weight; (b) at least 5 years
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 785
 Dup Responses in Powerlifters
TABLE 1. Experimental Training Periodization Models.
Day 1 (i.e., Monday)
Traditional DUP (HSP) Hypertrophy
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
Modified DUP (HPS) Hypertrophy
Traditional Daily Undulating Periodization (DUP) involves a weekly training order of hypertrophy, strength, and then power focused
bouts (HSP). Modified DUP involves a weekly training order of hypertrophy, power, and then strength focused bouts. Each protocol
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 10/06/2023
spans 6 weeks and consists of three exercises: back squat, bench press, and deadlift (only performed during strength-centric bouts).
of resistance training experience (self-reported); (c) engaged
in a structured resistance training program at least 3 times
per week before the onset of the study for 1 or more years;
and (e) consumption of a whey protein supplement on train-
ing days for at least the past 3 months. This study was
approved by the Florida State University’s Institutional
Review Board. All subjects signed an informed consent
before participation. Subjects also completed a health history
questionnaire before partaking in any research activities.
Testing Protocol
One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Testing and Powerlifting Total.
Subjects underwent 1RM testing on 2 separate occasions:
Week 1 (pretesting) and week 8 (posttesting). The 1RM testing
protocol was administered on the powerlifting disciplines
(back squat, bench press, and deadlift). For these sessions,
subjects had their blood drawn when entering the laboratory
30 minutes before both 1RM testing days. The 3 powerlifts
were performed according to USAPL regulation (25). Power-
lifting total was determined by the sum of a lifter’s best squat,
bench press, and deadlift. The primary investigator who deter-
mined whether the lifts were performed appropriately was an
experienced certified strength and conditioning specialist
(CSCS) coach and USAPL coaching curriculum author. Addi-
tionally, fractional plates (to the nearest 0.25 kg) were used for
measurement precision in all testing sessions.
Wilks Coefficient. Wilks coefficient is used by the USAPL to
determine relative (pound for pound) strength, and the
individual with the highest Wilks coefficient is determined
the “best lifter” at a USAPL competition (21). This coeffi-
cient is calculated by multiplying the lifter’s PT by a standard-
ized body weight coefficient number created by Robert
Wilks. This value was calculated to determine changes in
relative strength.
Total Volume. For each subject, volume from each week was
calculated by the product of sets 3 repetitions 3 weight-
lifted from each week’s strength-focused session, and then
each week was summed to provide a value of TV. This was
completed for each individual lift (i.e., squat TV, bench press
the TM
786 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Day 2 (i.e., Wednesday) Day 3 (i.e., Friday)
Strength Power
Power Strength
TV, and deadlift TV), and also for the combined total vol-
ume (CTV) of all lifts.
Total Repetitions (Relative Volume). Total repetitions (TR) were
determined by the amount of successful repetitions performed
to USAPL standards during each week’s strength-focused
session and then summed to provide a value of TR. This
was accomplished for each individual lift (i.e., squat TR, bench
press TR, and deadlift TR), and also for the combined total
repetitions (CTR) of all lifts. All lifts were monitored and
supervised by the primary investigator (CSCS).
Blood Collection and Biochemical Analysis. Blood draws were
administered 30 minutes before each strength-specific bout
weekly and on pre-1RM and post-1RM testing days, after
a 2-hour fast (8 total blood draws: 6 strength training sessions
and 2 1RM testing sessions). Ten milliliters of blood was
collected from the antecubital vein using a sterile, basic
venipuncture technique. The blood sample was allowed to
be kept in room temperature for 10 minutes before 15 minutes
of centrifugation at 48 C and 3,000 rpm. Afterward, serum was
separated and stored in aliquots at 2208 C until analysis. Free
testosterone and cortisol were analyzed in duplicate using
commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits (R&D
Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA). All assays were performed
according to the manufacturer’s directions. The coefficient of
variation of duplicate samples was less than 5%.
Training Protocol
Both modified (HPS) and traditional (HSP) DUP protocols
spanned 6 weeks, in the 2 months before the USAPL Florida
State Collegiate Championships during which time exercise
bouts were performed 3 times per week on nonconsecutive
days (Table 1). Each bout was either hypertrophy-centric,
power-centric, or strength-centric, and the order in which they
were performed was determined by group assignment. The
traditional DUP model (HSP) implemented hypertrophy train-
ing on day 1, strength training on day 2, and power training on
day 3, whereas days 2 (strength) and 3 (power) were switched
for the modified DUP format (HPS). Sets and repetitions were
the same among the DUP training groups but different among
the training types: hypertrophy, strength, and power.

Each group performed 3 exercises during training: the
squat, bench press, and deadlift. The squat and bench press
were performed during every training session, whereas the
deadlift was performed only during the strength training
session of each week. During the first week of each DUP
group, hypertrophy training consisted of 5 sets of 8
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
repetitions for the squat and bench press at 75% 1RM.
During the second week of training, both hypertrophy and
power days consisted of the same sets and repetitions as they
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 10/06/2023
did in week 1. For training weeks, 3 and 4 subjects performed
4 sets of 8 on the squat and bench press, whereas weeks 5
and 6 called for 3 sets of 8 repetitions for the squat and bench
press. The load for hypertrophy was autoregulated each
week dependent on each subjects’ performance (14), which
resulted in the training load being kept the same, increased
by 5 pounds, or increased by 10 pounds. Power training was
performed as follows: 5 sets of 1 repetition at 80% 1RM
during weeks 1 and 2, 4 sets of 1 repetition at 85% in weeks
2 and 3, and 3 sets of 1 repetition at 90% in weeks 5 and 6.
Strength training consisted of 3 sets of maximal repetitions at
85% 1RM on all 3 exercises during week 1. After week 1, the
load used on strength training days progressed from week to
week as follows: week 2–87.5%, week 3–90%, week 4–90%,
week 5–92.5%, and week 6–95%.
Dietary Log and Body Fat Percentage
To control the diet, subjects were instructed to keep a record
of their nutritional intake (all food and beverages) for each day
before a resistance training session. The diet logs were given to
all subjects with the instructions to replicate their food
consumption 24 hours before each resistance training session.
Furthermore, subjects were instructed to cease any dietary
supplementation use at least 2 weeks before the study. Body fat
was estimated using the average sum of 2 skinfold measure-
ments acquired from 3 sites (abdomen, front thigh, and chest);
if any site was .2 mm different among measurements, then
a third measurement was taken (8). The same investigator
administered the skinfold measurement for each subject.
Physical Activity Questionnaire
To obtain greater background on subjects’ exercise history and
qualifications for this study, each subject completed a physical
activity questionnaire during his initial visit to the laboratory.
Subjects provided information on how many years they had
been resistance training, a description of their previous training
programs, what they estimated their current 1RM to be on the
back squat, bench press, and deadlift exercises, and when they
competed in their last powerlifting competition. Subjects were
required to refrain from all additional forms of structured exer-
cise for the duration of the study.
Statistical Analyses
A student’s t-test was used to test for any differences at base-
line in relative or absolute strength. Pre-to-post measurements
were analyzed by a 2 (group) by 2 (time) repeated-measures
analysis of variance. Data were screened for normality and
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
outliers. In the event of a significant F-ratio, a Tukey’s post
hoc test was performed for pairwise comparisons. Further-
more, a student’s t-test was used to compare TV and relative
volume (i.e., TR) among groups. Data were reported as mean
and SD values, and significance was set at p # 0.05. Addition-
ally, a linear regression was used to determine any relationship
between individual subject TV and TR and percent change in
1RM. Finally, effect size was calculated using the Cohen’s
d model (3). All statistical analyses were performed using
Statistica 12 for Windows (StatSoft; Tulsa, OK, USA).
RESULTS
Subjects and Baseline Descriptive Measures
Subjects had an average of 6.4 6 2.1 years of training expe-
rience, and there was no difference in years of training expe-
rience among groups. Additionally, there was no significant
difference (p . 0.05) in any absolute or relative strength
measure among groups at baseline. One subject in HSP
missed 2 back squat sessions for precautionary reasons due
to a minor injury (one hypertrophy and one power session),
but completed all bench press sessions. No other sessions
were missed in either group. Therefore, compliance for the
bench press and deadlift in each group was 100%. Compli-
ance for the back squat was 99% in HSP and 100% in HPS.
1RM Strength
Mean values for pretraining and posttraining performance
variables, for both groups, can be seen in Table 2.
Individual Lift 1RM
There were main time effects (p # 0.05) for all individual
lifts. For both squat and deadlift, there was no group 3 time
interactions (p . 0.05). Mean percent increases in HSP were
7.93% and 6.70% for squat and deadlift, respectively. For
HPS, mean percent increases were 10.48% in the squat
and 7.57% in the deadlift. However, for bench press HPS
increased 1RM by 8.13% (133.31 6 17.08 to 144.14 6
20.19 kg), which was significantly greater (p , 0.01) than
the 2.13% increase exhibited by HSP (130.28 6 20.07 kg to
133.81 6 21.58 kg). Interestingly, squat and bench press
1RM effect sizes (ES) were 0.74 and 0.52 in favor of HPS.
Powerlifting Total
There was no difference among groups for PT (p # 0.05).
The mean values in HSP increased from 485.19 6 62.00 kg
to 517.60 6 60.80 kg (+6.70%) and in HPS from 506.51 6
58.96 kg to 550.36 6 66.67 kg (+8.66%). Additionally, effect
size calculation showed a value of 0.51 in favor of HPS.
Wilks Coefficient
Hypertrophy, strength, and power, and HPS demonstrated
a main time effect (p # 0.05) for Wilks coefficient. Hyper-
trophy, strength, and power, and HPS exhibited a 6.76% and
8.65% increase from pre to post, but there were no significant
group differences for these time-dependent changes. How-
ever, there was an effect size value of 0.67 in favor of HPS.
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 787
 Dup Responses in Powerlifters

TABLE 2. Pre- and Post-training strength measures and Cohen’s d effect size comparison of post-training means.

HSP (n = 9) HPS (n = 9) ES

Δ Group
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

Pre Post (%) Pre Post Δ (%) favored

1RM squat (kg) 162.03 (18.67) 174.89* (18.18) 7.93 173.12 (20.76) 191.27* (25.26) 10.48 0.74 (HPS)
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 10/06/2023

1RM bench 130.28 (20.07) 133.81 (21.58) 2.71 133.31 (17.08) 144.14*† (20.19) 8.13 0.52 (HPS)
press (kg)
1RM deadlift 195.80 (27.54) 216.97* (26.68) 6.70 199.83 (27.53) 221.00* (27.21) 7.57 0.48 (HPS)
(kg)
PT (kg) 485.19 (62.00) 517.60* (60.80) 6.70 506.51 (58.96) 550.36* (66.67) 8.66 0.51 (HPS)
Wilk’s 328.08 (23.45) 350.27* (21.37) 6.76 342.74 (38.11) 372.38* (41.66) 8.65 0.67 (HPS)
coefficient

HSP = Hypertrophy, Strength, Power Group, HPS = Hypertrophy, Power, Strength Group, D = mean relative change from
pre-post training, ES = Effect Size, 1RM = One-Repetition Maximum. Values reported as means 6 standard deviations.
*significantly different than Pre (p , 0.05), # significantly different between groups (p , 0.05).

Total Volume was significantly greater (p , 0.01) in HPS (28,261.45 6

The CTV performed (Figure 1) was significantly (p , 0.01) 2,720.17 kg) compared with HSP (19,280.62 6 1,504.94
greater in HPS (31,566.02 6 6,708.38 kg) than in HSP kg), and bench press TV was significantly greater (p ,
(44,055.56 6 8,557.00 kg). In individual exercises, squat TV 0.01) in HPS (16,591.27 6 1,892.37 kg) compared with

Figure 1. Total volume of strength-specific sessions in both groups. Squat total volume (Panel A.), bench press total volume (Panel B.), deadlift total volume
(Panel C.), and combined total volume (Panel B.). HSP = Hypertrophy, Strength, Power, HPS = Hypertrophy, Power, Strength. Data reported as means 6
standard deviations. *p , 0.05 = significantly greater than HSP.

the TM

788 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 3. Pre- and post-training serum testosterone and cortisol levels.
HSP (n = 9)
Pre
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
Testosterone (ng$ml21) 10.41 (6.71)
Cortisol (ng$ml21) 43.75 (27.84) 37.21 (24.12)
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 10/06/2023
HSP = Hypertrophy, Strength, Power Group, HPS = Hypertrophy, Power, Strength Group. Values reported as means 6
standard deviations.
HSP (10,009.20 6 1,704.82 kg). However, there was no sig-
nificant difference (p . 0.05) for deadlift TV among groups.
Additionally, CTV was strongly correlated (r = 0.68) with
percent change in PT. Further squat TV was strongly related
(r = 0.69) to percent change in squat 1RM, as was bench
press TV with percent change in the bench press 1RM (r =
0.89). For deadlift, there was a moderate relationship
between deadlift TV and percent increase in deadlift 1RM
(r = 0.48).
Relative Volume–Total Repetitions
Similar to CTV, CTR across all strength-specific sessions
were significantly (p , 0.01) greater in HPS (218.22 6 50.44)
vs. HSP (297.11 6 48.56). In the individual lifts, squat TR
were greater (p = 0.02) in HPS (199.0 6 25.80) vs. HSP
(89.44 6 27.49); similarly, bench press TR were greater
(p , 0.01) in HPS (93.56 6 22.09) vs. HSP (59.56 6
14.23). However, there were no group differences for deadlift
TR (p . 0.05).
Testosterone and Cortisol
There were no significant changes (p . 0.05) in serum tes-
tosterone or cortisol levels from pretesting to posttesting
(Table 3). Furthermore, there were no changes for either
hormone in HSP or HPS alone at any time point throughout
the training protocol. Although no group differences were
evident, there was main time effect (p # 0.05) showing a sig-
nificant decrease for serum testosterone pretraining to week
5 (231.40%) and to week 6 (23.45%). Similarly, a main time
effect (p # 0.05) for serum cortisol level noted a decrease
from pretraining to week 3 (225.67%) and again at week 4
(232.42%), but again no group differences existed. Finally,
testosterone to cortisol ratio (T/C) was not significantly
different (p . 0.05) from pretest to posttest nor was there
any significant difference (p . 0.05) among groups at any
time point.
DISCUSSION
This study is the first to compare 2 different configurations of
DUP in resistance-trained men, and the first to analyze the
efficacy of DUP specifically in powerlifters. In accordance
with previous literature (17,18,21), our findings indicate that
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
HPS (n = 9)
Post Pre Post
7.88 (7.23) 15.76 (8.07) 13.48 (9.14)
39.72 (25.62) 33.00 (17.73)
DUP is effective at increasing 1RM strength in already trained
individuals in a relatively short time (i.e., 6 weeks of training).
Our main findings support our hypothesis; in that TV perfor-
mance and 1RM increases were greater in the modified model
of DUP (HPS) as opposed to the traditional configuration of
HSP. This is evidenced by significantly greater increases in
1RM bench press than HSP. Furthermore, calculation of
effect size detects meaningful differences in outcomes; squat
1RM, bench press 1RM, PT, and Wilks coefficient had ES of
0.74, 0.52, 0.51, and 0.67, respectively, in favor of HPS. Imple-
menting the usage of effect size data allows the magnitude of
difference among groups to be assessed in a smaller sample
size and has been previously used in periodization research
(16,18). Finally, the HPS design resulted in greater CTV and
CTR and also greater volume and repetitions in specific dis-
ciplines of the squat and bench press.
In accordance with previous research (16-19,21), our
study demonstrated DUP to elicit significant strength
enhancement. Previous studies have demonstrated the supe-
riority of an undulating or nonlinear design over a LP model
(16-19,21). The concept of UP has been postulated to be
more effective than LP due to the frequency of altering
training variables, thereby providing a greater variation in
neuromuscular stimulation, leading to an enhanced training
adaptation. Both DUP models implemented in this study
were designed to train the 3 powerlifts, which are disciplines
in competition and staples of a well-trained lifters program.
The varying order of hypertrophy, strength, and power-type
training is unique to literature and was designed to examine
whether one configuration allowed athletes to train in an
enhanced state of “readiness” to possibly allow for height-
ened performance.
The theory of designing resistance training programming
to position athletes to train under conditions of readiness has
been previously examined (15) using a model of flexible NLP
(11). McNamara and Stearne (2010) demonstrated a model
of flexible NLP to elicit greater strength than a fixed order of
NLP in beginning trainees. In this study, the design of HPS
allowed athletes 96 hours between a high-volume hypertro-
phy session and a high-intensity strength session with
a power or speed session separating the 2. It was
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 789
 Dup Responses in Powerlifters
hypothesized that this strategy would provide athletes with
a greater state of readiness during the strength session than
HSP. It seems that this hypothesis was supported as HPS
yielded more TV and relative volume or TR in the squat and
bench press disciplines and also CTV and CTR.
Previous research has shown TV (or total work) to be the
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
training variables most closely related to measures of muscle
performance (i.e., strength and hypertrophy) (4). Indeed, the
greater TV achieved by HPS during the strength session may
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 10/06/2023
explain the superior strength performance as evidenced by
strong correlations of TV of an individual lift to percent change
in that lift: 1RM squat (r = 0.69), bench press (r = 0.89), and
PT (r = 0.68). Therefore, regarding the present findings, it
would seem advantageous for powerlifters or strength
athletes to configure a periodization model to maximize
TV. Additionally, although hypertrophy was not measured
in this investigation, data support a direct positive relation-
ship between TV and muscle growth (4), suggesting an
HPS design may also lead to greater increases in muscle
hypertrophy than HSP. It is also well documented that
hypertrophy, strength, and power adaptations are interre-
lated (24), therefore, the modified DUP design may be
appropriate for a variety of athletes.
Unique to our study was the implementation of the
deadlift as previous DUP studies have not directly trained
or tested the deadlift (16–19,21). However, our study used
a powerlifting population, which performs the deadlift in
competition and had substantial previous experience with
this discipline. Although, the deadlift was not performed in
a DUP fashion and was only performed with a frequency of
once per week (strength-specific sessions). This lower fre-
quency, compared with 3X per week. for the squat and
bench, may account for the lack of difference between
groups in deadlift 1RM, deadlift TV, and deadlift TR. Inter-
estingly, the deadlift still improved (HSP: +6.70%, HPS:
+7.57%), comparable with the squat and bench press, sug-
gesting a comparable training stimulus despite a lower
weekly frequency.
Another variable unique aspect to the current investiga-
tion was the implementation of autoregulatory progressive
resistance exercise or more simply autoregulation to the
protocol. This method stipulates that an athlete’s training
load will be determined based on the previous week’s per-
formance. As described in the methods, this approach was
implemented during each week’s hypertrophy-type session
to determine training load. Although this strategy has been
used as a stand-alone method and has compared positively
with LP for strength (14), it has not yet been incorporated
into a DUP setup. Furthermore, we are the first to integrate
autoregulation and DUP into the same periodized design.
This approach seems appropriate to minimize failure of
a prescribed training load on a given day and was likely
beneficial to the athletes in this study.
Novelty in program design was also present in this
investigation by monitoring temporal hormone response to
the TM
790 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
DUP training. Although no difference among groups or
resting change in testosterone and cortisol levels was
observed, to our knowledge, this is the first protocol to
examine anabolic and catabolic hormone response to DUP
training in well-trained men. The lack of resting difference in
both groups from pretraining to posttraining is not surprising
as data have shown, and it may take multiple years in trained
lifters to achieve a positive change in testosterone to cortisol
ratio (6). Thus, the total of 8 weeks in our study was likely
insufficient to achieve resting changes. Interestingly, there
was a main time effect for a decrease in testosterone at weeks
5 and 6, and for cortisol at weeks 3 and 4, with no group
differences. A possible explanation is the high frequency of
multijoint movements may have led to a short-term over-
reaching stage, and previous authors have attributed hor-
monal decrease to accumulated muscle fatigue (13) during
a training cycle. However, as subjects continued to adapt to
the protocol and after a taper after week 6, supercompensa-
tion and recovery were achieved to allow for restoration of
hormone concentrations.
It must be noted, however, that data have consistently
shown the nature of a periodized model to be of little
importance in novice individuals (1,2,7), attributable to the
accelerated rate of neuromuscular gains in beginners. There-
fore, one limitation in our study is that we only included
well-trained men, and our results may not be applicable to
the novice athlete. A novice trainee rather should concen-
trate on technique improvements, adherence to training, and
avoiding overtraining as paramount importance instead of
focusing on an optimal DUP design; as beginners will benefit
substantially from early phase neuromuscular adaptations
(23) regardless of periodization model. A second limitation
is that we only compared 2 different DUP designs. As this is
the first investigation to compare various DUP configura-
tions, it is likely that the weekly design can still be improved
on to maximize volume and in turn muscle performance.
In summary, this study demonstrated that a modified
DUP design (HPS) allowed lifters to perform greater TV and
TR than the traditional configuration (HSP), in one meso-
cycle (i.e., 6 weeks). Second, effect size calculations demon-
strate greater strength improvements in the squat, bench
press, and PT in favor of HPS, and these improvements may
be explained by strong correlations between TV and percent
change in strength.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
These findings demonstrate 2 important factors in accordance
with the previous literature: (a). Total training volume seems
to be a determinant of increased strength performance, and
(b). Daily undulating periodization is an effective model to
enhance 1RM strength during short-term training protocols
(16-19,21) in well-trained men. Therefore, we suggest that
athletes and coaches can achieve greater training volume
and performance through implementation of a HPS configu-
ration of DUP compared with HSP. However, since relatively

few training studies exist regarding various training designs;
research examining further DUP configurations is necessary.
Moreover, this study integrated principles of autoregulation
into the overall DUP setup with success in already well-
trained lifters. Therefore, it is possible that although DUP
provides an overall setup for success, further integration of
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
periodized designs (i.e., a DUP and autoregulation program-
ming strategy into a block and linear yearly framework) may
be appropriate to optimize results. Finally, we also recom-
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 10/06/2023
mend that further research be conducted related to integrat-
ing training designs; and also that practitioners can effectively
implement autoregulation within a DUP setup.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
No funding was received for this project. The authors
declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The authors would like to thank the subjects for their time
and effort.
REFERENCES
1. Baker, D, Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Periodization: The effect on
strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res 8:
235–242, 1994.
2. Buford, TW, Rossi, SJ, Smith, DB, and Warren, AJ. A comparison
of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume
and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1245–1250,
2007.
3. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988.
4. Flann, KL, LaStayo, PC, McClain, DA, Hazel, M, and Lindstedt, SL.
Muscle damage and muscle remodeling: No pain, no gain? J Exp
Biol 214: 674–679, 2011.
5. Fleck, SJ. Periodized strength training: A critical review. J Strength
Cond Res 13: 82–89, 1999.
6. Häkkinen, K, Pakarinen, A, Alen, M, Kauhanen, H, and
Komi, PV. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes
to strength training in two years. J Appl Physiol (1985) 65: 2406–
2412, 1988.
7. Herrick, AB and Stone, WJ. The effects of periodization versus
progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in
women. J Strength Cond Res 10: 72–76, 1996.
8. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
9. Kok, LY, Hamer, PW, and Bishop, DJ. Enhancing muscular qualities
in untrained women: Linear versus undulating periodization. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 41: 1797–1807, 2009.
10. Kraemer, WJ. A series of studies-the physiological basis for strength
training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J Strength Cond
Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
11. Kraemer, WJ and Fleck, SJ. Optimizing Strength Training Designing
Nonlinear Periodization Workouts. Champaign, Illinois: Human
Kinetics Publishing, 2007.
12. Kraemer, WJ, Häkkinen, K, Triplett-Mcbride, NT, Fry, AC,
Koziris, LP, Ratamess, NA, Bauer, JE, Volek, JS, McConnell, T,
Newton, RU, Gordon, SE, Cummings, D, Hauth, J, Pullo, F,
Lynch, JM, Fleck, SJ, Mazzetti, SA, and Knuttgen, HG.
Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women
tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35: 157–168, 2003.
13. Kraemer, WJ and Ratamess, NA. Hormonal responses and
adaptations to resistance exercise and training. Sports Med 35: 339–
361, 2005.
14. Mann, JB, Thyfault, JP, Ivey, PA, and Sayers, SP. The effect of
autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. Linear
periodization on strength improvement in college athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 1718–1723, 2010.
15. McNamara, JM and Stearne, DJ. Flexible nonlinear periodization in
a beginner college weight training Class. J Strength Cond Res 24: 17–
22, 2010.
16. Miranda, F, Simão, R, Rhea, M, Bunker, D, Prestes, J, Leite, RD,
Miranda, H, de Salles, BF, and Novaes, J. Effects of linear vs. Daily
undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and
submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1824–1830, 2011.
17. Monteiro, AG, Aoki, MS, Evangelista, AL, Alveno, DA,
Monteiro, GA, Picarro Ida, C, and Ugrinowitsch, C. Nonlinear
periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training
routines. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1321–1326, 2009.
18. Peterson, MD, Dodd, DJ, Alvar, BA, Rhea, MR, and Favre, M.
Undulation training for development of hierarchical fitness and improved
firefighter job performance. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1683–1695, 2008.
19. Prestes, J, De Lima, C, Frollini, AB, Donatto, FF, and Conte, M.
Comparison of linear and reverse linear periodization effects on
maximal strength and body composition. J Strength Cond Res 23:
266–274, 2009.
20. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, Ball, SD, and Burkett, LN. Three sets of
weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting
strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 525–529, 2002.
21. Rhea, MR, Ball, SD, Phillips, WT, and Burkett, LN. A comparison of
linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume
and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16: 250–255, 2002.
22. Schiotz, MK, Potteiger, JA, Huntsinger, PG, and Denmark, LC. The
short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on
body composition, strength, and performance. J Strength Cond Res
12: 173–178, 1998.
23. Staron, RS, Karapondo, DL, Kraemer, WJ, Fry, AC, Gordon, SE,
Falkel, JE, Hagerman, FC, and Hikida, RS. Skeletal muscle
adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men
and women. J Appl Physiol (1985) 76: 1247–1255, 1994.
24. Stone, M and O’Bryant, HS. Weight training. In: A Scientific
Approach. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing, 1987.
25. USAPL and Administrators. I. Usapl Rulebook and by-Laws. 2001.
26. Willoughby, DS. The effects of mesocycle-length weight training
programs involving periodization and partially equated volumes on
upper and lower body strength. J Strength Cond Res 7: 2–8, 1993.
VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2016 | 791